2.3 Accessibility Legislation

Many jurisdictions have enacted legislation intended to increase the overall accessibility of built environments, services, education, and information and communication technology. What follows is an overview of accessibility legislation with consideration of how those laws have influenced digital accessibility and the accessibility of digital learning material. Digital accessibility encompasses an effort to ensure that websites, software, applications and multimedia are usable by everyone (W3C Web Accessibility Initiative, 2024a). Considering a social model of disability, digital accessibility addresses issues in the design of technology instead of the needs of specific individuals. Inaccessible content excludes people with disabilities and contributes to a digital divide between those whose required technology can interact with content and those whose required technology cannot (Fennelly-Atkinson et al., 2022). Accessible digital content can be engaged with and consumed by all users, regardless of disability or technology used, without delay or modification; accessibility is a proactive measure for all whereas accommodation is a reactive measure for an individual (McGowan, 2018). Some examples of digital learning material that are often more accessible are:

• Major learning management systems (e.g., Brightspace, Moodle, Canvas although that is not a guarantee that the material published to those platforms achieves high rates of accessibility).
• File formats such as Word and PowerPoint.
• HTML and EPUB digital books.

However, file formats such as PDFs and publisher platforms that rely on proprietary assistive technology, such as built-in reading tools at the exclusion of mainstream, cross-platform assistive technologies, are generally less accessible.

2.3.1 History of Disability Legislation

A stated aim of accessibility legislation is to “identify, remove and prevent barriers to individuals” where barriers are defined as “anything that hinders the full and equal participation in society of a person with an impairment” (Government of British Columbia, 2021). Accessibility legislation intends to be proactive by removing barriers to access before they emerge and ensure that disabled people have an equitable opportunity to participate in society (Jacobs, 2023). Accessibility legislation may work to supplant or enhance existing human rights protections for disabled people. As a local example, while the British Columbia Human Rights Code requires reasonable accommodations for people with disabilities, the Accessible British Columbia Act seeks to create accessible experiences for all and should theoretically reduce the need for accommodations. Human rights-based accessibility requires complaints of exclusion or discrimination against disabled people and puts on the onus on disabled people whereas accessibility legislation places the responsibility on society to create accessible experiences (Jacobs, 2023).

At least 45 countries have web accessibility laws or government policy (W3C Web Accessibility Initiative, 2025). Thanks to the immense effort of activists and allies, the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, specifically Section 504, was the first major piece of legislation to ensure disabled people could not “be denied the benefits of, be excluded from participation in, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving Federal Financial assistance” (Rehabilitation Act of 1973, p. 141). This law, modeled after the Civil Rights Act passed a decade earlier, was foundational for employment reform and access to public services. Amendments in 1974 redefined disability to include impairments that limit life activities, not just access to employment (Ellcessor, 2010). 1981, the International Year of Disabled People, raised global awareness of the inclusion of disabled people as a human right (Meekosha & Shuttleworth, 2009). The United States Rehabilitation Act of 1986 included telecommunications standards and the American with Disabilities Act (ADA) was passed in 1990. The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act was passed in 1990 to ensure free public education to American disabled children. The Salamanca Statement in 1994 advocated for inclusive education through policy that would enable schools to serve all children and affirmed the right of all children to learn together (UNESCO, 1994). The 1996 US Telecommunications Act, specifically section 255, included considerations for accessibility in electronic media requiring that manufacturers and service providers create products and experiences that were accessible to people with disabilities whenever it was “readily achievable” (Telecommunications Act of 1996, 1996). Section 255 “was the first product design law to attempt to drive the market to create accessible products. It is not a traditional civil rights law since it is an accessible design law that does not depend on the filing of a complaint for its requirements to be enforced” (Waddell, 533). Critics note the ‘readily achievable’ clause was dependent on capacity, nature of the consumers’ disability, and numerous contextual factors which allowed for considerable inaccessibility and exclusion to persist (Ellcessor, 2010).

In 1997, the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) chartered the Web Accessibility Initiative (WAI). Regarding technology and digital content, most legislation is based on, or includes reference to, the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (Gifford, 2024). WCAG 1.0 was published in 1998 with a final version released in May 1999. WCAG 1.0 included 14 guidelines and 65 checkpoints to measure conformance (W3C WAI, 1999). To account for the constant changes to personal computing and widespread use of the internet, WCAG 2.0 was released in 2008. WCAG 1.0’s guidelines were organized under the perceivable, operable, understandable, and robust (POUR) principles and checkpoints were replaced by Success Criteria (W3C WAI, 2008). As of 2026, WCAG 2.2 is the most current version with 9 additional Success Criteria (W3C WAI, 2024a). WCAG 3.0 is a planned restructuring “written as plain language, user-centered outcomes statements” (W3C WAI, 2024b). As of early-2026, WCAG 3.0 is still in draft. Early reviewers indicate WCAG 3.0 shifts from compliance to progress which emphasizes a more holistic approach to accessibility, prioritizing user experience and access over rigid compliance to standards (Prosmitskiy, 2025).

Returning to broader accessibility legislation, the Workforce Investment Act of 1998 required federal services to provide disabled federal employees and members of the public “access to and use of information and data that is comparable to the access to and use of the information and data’ by peers who do not have disabilities” (p. 262). The 1998 Section 508 amendment to the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 mandated that electronic and information technology be accessible to disabled people (Holmes, 2018; Youngblood & Brooks, 2018). As with the original legislation, this amendment only covered federally funded programs and services. The Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act (AODA) was passed in 2005, representing Canada’s first major piece of accessibility legislation (Government of Ontario, 2005). The 2006 United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities acknowledges that “disability is an evolving concept and that disability results from the interaction between persons with impairments and attitudinal and environmental barriers that hinders their full and effective participation in society on an equal basis with others”. However, as with the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals, these efforts (however well-intentioned) lack specifics and enforceability. The European Union (EU) adopted directive EN 301 549 in 2014 which outlined accessibility requirements for public procurement in information and communication technology products and services (CEN et al., 2015). In 2016, the EU adopted Directive 2016/2102 which outlined accessibility requirements for public sector websites and mobile applications (The European Parliament and the Council of the European Union, 2016).

A common thread in early accessibility legislation is the emphasis on publicly funded organizations. Theoretically, the withholding of public funding could be used as a cudgel to enforce compliance with accessibility standards, but private entities would face no punishment for inaccessibility under that paradigm. However, in 2019, the European Accessibility Act mandated unified accessibility regulations for private sector business and services, including websites, across the EU (The European Parliament and the Council of the European Union, 2019). In Canada, the 2019 Accessible Canada Act (ACA) covered a range of areas including accessible public information and communication technology (Accessible Canada Act, 2019). The Accessible British Columbia Act (Accessible BC Act) was passed in 2021 (Accessible British Columbia Act, 2021). The ACA and Accessible BC Act are, as of 2026, in a phased roll out including incomplete standards and have not faced significant legal tests. Legislative efforts to improve digital accessibility have been, as discussed below, ineffective. However, that does not mean the efforts are in vain. In addition to legislation, more must be done to improve access to technology and digital content because “for the rights of the disabled to mean anything in today’s world, they must be extended to cyberspace no less than to parking spaces (“A More Accessible Internet,” 1999).

2.3.2 Shortcomings of Accessibility Legislation

Despite accessibility laws and initiatives, data suggests that the passage of accessibility legislation does result in significantly increased digital accessibility. Consider, in relation to the increasing rates of students approved for academic accommodations, the number of inaccessible websites, the consistent access issues with digital file formats, and accessibility issues within learning management systems. Vint Cerf, one of the internet’s earliest architects, laments the lack of enforcement of accessibility legislation, stating: “It’s almost criminal that programmers have not had their feet held to the fire to build interfaces that are accommodating for people [with disabilities]” (Solsman, 2017). If legislation were enforced, there would be significant penalties for companies, programmers, and authors that created inaccessible content. As disability lawyer Lainey Feingold notes, the lack of digital accessibility is “inexcusable because we know how to design and build technology and digital content that disabled people can use” (Feingold, 2026, p. 3).

While guidelines and legislation may be useful starting points to making more accessible content, clarity in language, recommendations on formats, and specific references to digital accessibility are needed to make significant progress in the accessibility of digital learning material (Marcus-Quinn, 2022; Sciarretta, 2025). A 2023 study in the United Kingdom found that three decades of legislation and educational policy change had little effect on reducing inequalities and no change in educational attainment for visually impaired individuals (Bountziouka et al., 2023).

Accessibility legislation may not significantly improve digital accessibility due to lack of awareness about digital accessibility and unclear technical requirements within legislation (Ashbourne, 2024; Cerovac, 2024). A lack of awareness means practices are harder to normalize and implement. Accessibility legislation often frames accessibility as a cost, rather than focusing on benefits (Cerovac, 2024). This framing allows decision makers to de-emphasize accessibility in times of austerity. Accessibility legislation may create a dichotomy between disabled people and society by allowing critics to portray disabled people as malcontents freeloading off government handouts or abusing litigation for personal profit (Dolmage, 2017; Dorfman & Burke, 2020). Civil rights laws, such as accessibility legislation, have historically faced backlash and skepticism. Tests of laws often dilute the intent, such as revisions of the ADA, while some parts of laws are not enforced and exclusion remains (Dolmage, 2017). While disabled people are often consulted on the terms of legislation and policy, their contributions may not be centered sufficiently to ensure meaningful change comes from legislative efforts. However, the principles of inclusive design and initiatives such as All Standards With Us aim to include disabled people in the creation of standards, policy and legislation because “when more people with disabilities and Deaf people get involved in the standards process, the goods and services we use in our daily lives become more accessible and inclusive” (Inclusive Design Research Centre, 2025).

Americans with Disabilities Act

While the ADA may have had some positive impacts, discrimination and massive disparities between disabled and non-disabled people remain, particularly in employment where early research suggested the ADA reduced employment amongst people with disabilities (Button et al., 2016; Dorfman & Burke, 2020). More recent data suggests while 79.4% of non-disabled Americans are employed only 37% of people with disabilities are (Wu et al., 2022). In some states, the rate of educational participation by disabled Americans increased after the ADA’s enactment, although the study’s data was limited (Jolls, 2004). Specific to digital accessibility, critics note that a significant loophole in the ADA allows for the creation of inaccessible technology and information provided it may eventually be made accessible. This transformation rarely occurs and the law “allows for separate but equal, but usually results in simply unequal” (Wentz et al., 2011). Critics note that the ADA has been largely unenforced, with courts spending significant time on definitions of “‘reasonable accommodation,’ ‘undue hardship,’ and ‘readily accessible’” (Dorfman & Burke, 2020). How those terms are defined matters to disabled people. When allowed, an institution can claim what would be required to accommodate someone would not be reasonable or would place undue hardship on their capacity; simply, if it’s too much work to accommodate someone, they don’t. The stagnant levels of measurable digital accessibility (as discussed below) show the blunted effect of the ADA’s impact on improving the lives of disabled people through more accessible digital content.

Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act

In Ontario the AODA requires institutions make reasonable efforts to ensure accessibility, however the feasibility of such efforts are defined by the institution based on the defense of undue hardship (Titchkosky, 2011). As a result, asking for access requires legal challenges of those definitions. In Ontario, up to 58% of educational accessibility-related court cases were dismissed at the preliminary stage based on timeliness, jurisdiction, or other procedural causes (Jacobs, 2023). Legislative efforts that require marginalized groups to litigate access leave much to be desired. The Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act Alliance criticized the AODA in 2018, noting that the lack of punishment for infractions emboldens violators and the reliance on self-reporting undermines the entire process: “imagine how effective any law enforcement would be if Government simply takes on faith when an organization says it has paid all its taxes, or has never discharged any pollutants into the environment, or has properly paid all its employees” (Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act Alliance, 2018). In 2020, the Government of Ontario undertook a review of the information and communications standards of the AODA. The report found the current approach “flawed”, “not responsive to changes in technology”, and lacked consultation with those who build and use technology daily (Government of Ontario, 2020).

The AODA was found to have limited impact on post-secondary education (Flaherty & Roussy, 2014) and that the reliance on accommodations indicated a lack of progress toward proactive accessibility (Marquis et al., 2016). The AODA was found to be so toothless that the Ontario Human Rights Commission conceded that despite improvements, disabled students still face difficulties accessing education (2018). To address shortcomings of the AODA’s impact on education, the Government of Ontario commissioned the development of post-secondary education accessibility standards. The aim of the standards was to ensure that “students with disabilities must be able to access and use technology, produce and consume content, and engage in learning independently and effectively” (Government of Ontario, 2022). The proposal noted several barrier areas and concluded that “technology used in digital learning must be accessible to, and usable by, students with disabilities and be compatible for use with common assistive technologies” and where digital accessibility barriers continue to exist, an alternative must be offered. These alternatives are to be documented in a student’s accommodation plan and reviewed each semester to determine more suitable and permanent solutions. The proposal also called for educators to list in their course syllabi all the digital technology and electronic media to be used in the course to best prepare students and identify any accessibility issues at the beginning of the course.

In 2023, the 4th independent review of the AODA was delivered. The review cited a survey that found 75% of disabled Ontario residents reported negative experiences. The review concludes that there has been minimal change in accessibility, enforcement is non-existent with 25 compliance staff overseeing 412,000 organizations, and that the AODA is failing disabled Ontarians (Donovan, 2023). The review declares the state of accessibility in Ontario to be in crisis, requiring “bold and decisive action” (p. 48). However, the review cautions that disabled people do not want more policy and standards, but actual “positive experiences similar to that of the rest of the population” (p. 8). The AODA has faced significant criticism and rightly so. Like other accessibility initiatives, two decades of the AODA has not increased the accessibility of digital content or improved the experience of disabled students.

Web Accessibility

Since the first draft of WCAG in 1998, web accessibility has been documented and studied. In 2000, of the 50 most visited web site home pages, 81% were inaccessible (Sullivan & Matson, 2000). A 2003 study of business and not for profit websites found that 98% were inaccessible (Lazar et al., 2003). In 2004, 91% of ecommerce home pages had accessibility issues (Loiacono & McCoy, 2004). Kelly et al. found in 2005 that through multiple surveys levels of web accessibility “remain disappointing” (p. 46). A 2009 study of Fortune 100 business’ websites found that 83% were inaccessible (Loiacono et al., 2009). A review of studies between 2004 and 2022 found that between 32% to 98% of websites had notable accessibility issues (Rowland, 2023). This wide variance is due to the spectrum of types of web content analyzed and varying testing procedures. Based on other data, 32% may be an outlier.

WebAIM, a web accessibility non-profit, conducts an annual accessibility audit of the million most visited webpages on the internet. Using automated tools, the 2019 study found 59.6 errors per page and a detectable error on 1 in every 13 elements with 97.8% of home pages having a WCAG failure (WebAIM, 2019). The 2026 study found 56.4 errors per page and a detectable error on 1 in every 26 elements with 95.9% of home pages having at least one WCAG failure (WebAIM, 2026). This slight improvement is overshadowed by the staggering number of accessibility issues. A 2024 report found that automated testing of 16 million websites documented a slight increase in overall accessibility score from 83% in 2019 to 84% in 2024 (Gifford, 2024). The author notes that “many straightforward issues remain unsolved” that could be fixed if accessibility were not treated as an afterthought (Gifford, 2024). The Web Almanac notes that in a study of 17 million websites, the average accessibility score in 2019 was 73%, rising to 82% by 2021, and slowly climbing to 85% by 2025 (Lazar & Gifford, 2026). The relatively minor decrease in detectable accessibility errors noted by WebAIM and The Web Almanac may represent a modern plateau.

In keeping with general trends, higher education websites remain inaccessible. A 2007 study found that of 99 instructional webpages at the University of Texas at Austin only 12 were fully compliant with Section 508 digital accessibility guidelines (Lewis et al., 2007). Further, a 2011 study of pages across 180 universities found roughly half of the 23,319 pages analyzed failed the researcher’s accessibility heuristic (Huss & Eastep, 2016). The National Center on Disability and Access to Education found that only 3% of websites from a sample of 100 institutions were accessible (Joly, 2011; Huss & Eastep, 2016). A review of the 60 top-ranked universities in the world found significant accessibility issues on home pages, admission pages, and course description pages (Fichten et al., 2020). A Finnish study found that legislation had little impact on improving the accessibility of university home pages. Of 38 Finnish universities, homepages with good accessibility were largely the same before and after accessibility legislation came into effect, while pages with poor accessibility remained so (Laamanen et al., 2024). Similarly in Norway, 310 municipal websites continued to have the same number of accessibility issues two years after accessibility legislation came into effect (Inal & Torkildsby, 2024). A 2021 study of European accessibility noted a gap between legislation intention and implementation (Oncins & Orero, 2021). The spectrum of findings shows that significant work is needed to ensure equitable access for all web users, including students. While technology and the internet is constantly changing, existing data on the accessibility of web content shows that the overall accessibility of web content has not increased since the introduction of WCAG in 1998. While the increasing complexity of web content could contribute to the lack of progress in making digital content more accessible, the toothlessness of legislation and lack of interest from content producers cannot be ignored as key factors to this stagnation.

Digital Learning Material

Website accessibility is relatively straightforward to document as pages are public and can be checked by automated tools. However, there are numerous other mediums in which the accessibility of learning material impacts learner access. A 2009 cited by Fichten et al. (2020) study found common digital accessibility issues at Canadian colleges and universities included inaccessible websites and course management systems, incompatibility with required technology, poor implementation of course management systems by instructors, and lack of student knowledge of how to use course management systems. While online and digital learning presents an opportunity for increased access, the organization and formatting of digital learning material may present significant barriers to student access (Huss & Eastep, 2016; Bartz, 2020). This paradox is unfortunate as students may not know the extent of their ability to access learning material until a course begins or even week to week as content is presented to them. Barriers to student access remain common in post-secondary, despite legislative efforts. A review of instructional material policy at 60 American post-secondary institutions found few references to accessibility standards while only 3% of reviewed institutions offered institutional certification of course accessibility or accessibility badging (McGowan, 2018).

Assessing the accessibility of digital learning material at scale can be difficult as most digital learning material is not publicly available. Instead, many institutions use learning management systems (LMS) to distribute digital learning materials. These LMSs often require user authentication and thus prevent researchers from scraping large amounts of material to audit. There exists research on the visual design and user-experience of learning management systems (Saleh et al., 2022; Stoesz & Niknam, 2022; Nakamura et al., 2025), however little research exists into the accessibility of content in learning management systems. Research suggests that learning management systems privilege certain learning styles and activity types by design which may make inaccessible and exclusive experiences for disabled students (Demmans Epp et al., 2020).

Studies on the accessibility of specific digital learning material are generally broad. A study of Irish digital learning material found that “not all digital content being used . . . is necessarily of a high quality or accessible” (Marcus-Quinn, 2022). A review of approaches to digital accessibility cited numerous studies that found digital educational content did not function properly with common assistive technology used by disabled students (Jackson, 2023). When a student cannot consume and engage with content using their required technology, they are excluded from the learning process (Fennelly-Atkinson et al., 2022). Additionally, accessible content that functions with assistive technology is essential to allow students to adjust content (e.g., size of font, contrast, have content read aloud) to their needs (Marghalani & York, 2021). Numerous studies on the benefit of assistive technology note that access, engagement, and academic success all increase for disabled students when content is accessible (Reyes et al., 2022) while others specifically note how inaccessible content hinders (or halts) academic progress (Bartz, 2020).

The accessibility of digital learning material distributed as documents, such as lecture slides or digital readings, is difficult to discern as they are rarely public. Even if public, documents would need to be downloaded to be assessed for accessibility. Given that gap in the available research, some extrapolation is needed. Adobe, the company that created the PDF, admits that of the 2.5 trillion PDFs in existence, 90% are inaccessible (Still, 2020; Yau, 2023); numerous studies confirm that roughly 90% of PDFs are inaccessible (Brady et al., 2015; Nganji, 2015; Nganji, 2018; Wang et al., 2021; Darvishy et al., 2023; Kumar & Wang, 2024; Pierrès et al., 2024; Iannuzzi et al., 2025; axes4 & mindscreen, 2026). The PDF is an incredibly common document format across all sectors including education. Given the inaccessibility of the web in general, the inaccessibility of post-secondary websites, and the alarmingly high rate of inaccessible PDF documents, it is reasonable to assume that content uploaded to and created in learning management systems suffers from similar rates of inaccessibility.

Other accessibility issues include inaccessible digital versions of textbooks, primarily the use of embedded proprietary screen reading or text-to-speech technology that is unfamiliar to students or incompatible with their existing technology and the inconsistent availability of older titles in accessible digital formats (Fichten et al., 2020). Library content may not be accessible, and due to Canadian copyright law, a student must have a specific accommodation to be entitled to an accessible copy of some material. Even when allowed to have access, finding or creating an accessible copy may take significant time. An accessibility review of academic libraries’ online learning objects (e.g., documents, infographics, multimedia, research and subject guides, slide decks, and interactive content) found that accessibility criteria may be overwhelming for creators, even those aware of the importance of accessibility (Chee et al., 2022). Reyes et al. concluded in 2022 that despite the importance of accessibility and inclusion, “accessibility in Higher education is still in its infancy” (Reyes et al., 2022, p. 582).

Regardless of format or medium, a significant issue with measuring accessibility is that technical accessibility and functional usability are not necessarily equal. An early review of website accessibility and usability compared to WCAG criteria found that 45% of accessibility and usability problems reported were not a violation of any WCAG 1.0 Checkpoints (Kelly et al., 2004). Websites could be in full compliance while still being largely unusable by disabled people, particularly blind users of screen reader software. A more useful test of accessibility is whether disabled users can use something, not whether it conforms to guidelines (Kelly et al., 2005). While accessibility and usability have similar goals; usability does not focus on individuals who interact with content via means outside the assumed norm and accessibility does not consider the user experience beyond a question of basic access (Fritz et al., 2019). WCAG shortcomings may be addressed in upcoming updates to WCAG, specifically the release of WCAG 3.0, as discussed in section 2.3.1. Other research confirms that even when digital content complies with WCAG, users with disabilities will still encounter significant barriers (Power et al., 2012). Additional criticisms of WCAG note that universally standardized approaches may unintentionally exclude disabled people whose experiences do not conform to Western disability norms (Lewthwaite, 2014). Accessibility testing against set criteria by non-disabled—albeit well-intentioned—programmers, developers, and designers is not an effective way to produce truly accessible and inclusive content. Even basic web accessibility testing can be difficult, time consuming, and confusing; to look at functional accessibility requires a highly skilled professional (Briggs et al., 2024). A 2021 study of European accessibility initiatives confirm that “there is still a clear gap between the legislations designed to improve digital accessibility and their practical implementation” due to high costs, technical skills required, lack of resources and “a lack of awareness as to how people with disabilities are likely to engage with such content” (Oncins & Orero, 2021, p. 85). Not only do these findings align with the assertion that digital accessibility legislation has not achieved its goals, but that consultation with disabled people is needed to best understand how they engage with and consume digital content. Engaging with the users most impacted by inaccessible content, in this case disabled students using assistive technology, may provide a more fulsome picture of what is not just technically accessible, but functionally usable.

While both web content and PDF documents exhibit high rates of accessibility issues, web content may be the preferred medium for learning materials. A PDF with significant accessibility deficiencies risks being entirely unreadable by screen reader and text to speech software, while its fixed layout prevents reflowing to users’ varying screen sizes, desired zoom levels, or font preferences. Inaccessible web content presents its own considerable barriers; however, its underlying structure typically preserves a base level of functional machine-readable text. While the experience may not be perfect, web content at least allows a minimum level of access that PDF often denies.

Despite decades of accessibility legislation (e.g., ADA, AODA, EN 301 549) there has been little progress in improving digital accessibility and the accessibility of digital learning material. Additional jurisdictions adopting similar legislation in recent years (e.g., ACA, Accessible BC Act) may be unlikely to spur significant progress. The existing legislation-based, compliance-focused accessibility movement is misaligned with the needs of disabled people leading some to wonder if it were possible to design the system to be any worse. Founder of the Inclusive Design Research Centre (IDRC) and noted digital accessibility expert Jutta Treviranus (2021) states that “web accessibility legislation is a tragic, but necessary, last resort measure to fix something that should not have been this broken.” Treviranus marvels at the current state of digital accessibility in which the onus to create accessible content is on individual authors who have little to no understanding of complex, shifting guidelines; guidelines that are used to emphasize that inaccessibility is a risk, not an opportunity. To mitigate this risk, a whole industry of consultants and remediation specialists exists to certify an organization as accessible, with little to no regard for the experience of disabled users. As these accessibility professionals are seen to be helping people with disabilities, they become powerful lobbyists according to Treviranus:

Whose interest it is to strengthen the web content legislation, but not fix the overall problem by making the Web accessible by default, through the authoring tools, browsers, markup and code, because that would end the burgeoning web accessibility industry. (2021)

As Clay Shirky (2010) writes, “an organization that commits to helping society manage a problem also commits itself to the preservation of that same problem, as its institutional existence hinges on society’s continued need for its management”. Profit seeking institutions have an interest in preserving the problem to which they are the solution. Treviranus (2023) labels this a ‘Machiavellian playbook’ that appears to support accessibility while ensuring inaccessibility is the norm and, in turn, profitable. Digital content is, according to Treviranus, broken (perhaps intentionally) and there are few tools to assist in the proactive creation of born-accessible content: “everyone creating content for the Web has to help fix it, using complex, confusing, quickly outdated rules beyond the understanding of the majority of people that create web content” (2021). Poorly enforced legislation intended to repair a system overrun by businesses interested in perpetual inaccessible content is not sustainable, logical, or making tangible improvements for the experiences of disabled students. Where inaccessible content exists, many become digital outcasts, those forgotten from the inevitable progress of technology (Smith, 2013). This work seeks to center those not considered and emphasize the value of accessible content.